Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Politics of Soviet Montage
Eisenstein believed that by justaposing disparate images in his editing process he could awake the masses from their ideological slumber and engage them to work for a progressive society. Recall the Odessa steps sequence. The various jump cuts of horror and outrage are supposed to mobilize us to work to prevent such abuses in the future. How realistic is this theory? Does the technique of montage engage us emotionally? Does it mobilize us to action? Or perhaps could it lead to other reactions? Consider, for example, the montage a viewer may assemble by clicking various channels on one's television. Or consider a similar editing for an action or war movie. Or consider an even more radical application of this process (with images without any logical relation). Is montage always connected to radical politics or can it be used for other purposes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This theory of awakening people to be more productive in the future by means of jump cuts is very unrealistic. In no way does it send a message to the viewers that a need for progressive change is imminent. On the other hand it does seem to aggravate the emotions more easily due to the rapidity of the edits between shots, therefore would engage viewers more. Other than the intensified emotional engagement I don’t see any way in which this idea of Montage would make people think about progressive action. A montage may create many feeling-related reactions such as confusion, but none that I believe will make people want to get up and act on something. Thousands of people see the advertisements on television about young children in Africa where there is a montage of very sad, starving, or sick African children. It makes the viewer feel bad or sad, but it doesn’t fill them with motivation to go and help the Africans. From what I have seen, more people respond to things other than montages to initiate action. It may be a multitude of things but I believe that the idea of montage is more related to uses other than politics.
ReplyDeleteI believe this theory is very realistic. The Odessa steps scene was a perfect example of this. The sequence barraged the viewer with over six minutes of absolute chaos and horror and it portrayed the Czar and his followers as the devil and his hellions. The scene where the baby was flying down the steps was atrocious, and the scene where the child was shot and trampled filled the viewer with anger as well. During these scenes of atrocity, the Czar's troops were marching on shooting all who stood in their way and the whole time the viewer never saw the troops faces. This was done on purpose to create a dissonance between the civilians and troops. It made the troops eerie and inhuman. At least that’s what I took away from the montage. In fact I was disgusted at those responsible of the atrocity in the film. It made me believe that the Czar was evil. Mission accomplished, the film spawned an emotional response of hate towards a political leader. This sort of reaction was also evident during the films release right around the time when the people of Russia were done with their Czar and ready for communism. So in that aspect as well, Battleship Potempkin served as an excellent form of propaganda and is in check with Eisenstein’s theory. I also believe that montages always include an underlying political message no matter what film. Saving Private Ryan Omaha beach scene is perfect example of this. It is a giant montage depicting the horrors of war, and sending a message that the Nazi’s were savage warmongers.
ReplyDelete